It was pointed out to me two errors that cancel
each other out and actually produce the correct
result.<br><br>That is, I have applied Fleming's left hand rule for
induction when it should be Fleming's right had
rule.<br><br>That said, in the application of this rule, I assumed
that the earth's magnetic north is at the north pole.
Not true. The earth's magnet actually operates like a
bar magnet with geographical north where this bar
magnet's south pole is. Given that opposites attact, that
is why a compass can point with the north pole of
the magnet in the compass toward the geographical
north pole! In short, correct application would be to
take your right hand and point it to the geographical
south pole--and you still get the result that westward
moving currents are going to induct a current skyward
and enhance cirrus, or flaring expanding and
contracting is going to result in a net upward electrical
vector to the position of the afternoon sky.

: <a href=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-08/aaft-ssd080101.php
target=new>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-08/aaft-ssd080101.php</a>

<a href=http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/
target=new>http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/</a>

The monsoonal floods in Bangladesh have
started<br><br>Map of
India:<br><br><a href=http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html
target=new>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html</a><br><br>\
Map of
Bg:<br><br><a href=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html
target=new>http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html</a><br><br\
>Sea Surface Temperature
anomalies:<br><br><a
href=http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
target=new>http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html</a><br><br\
>Nothing is on fire red hot, such as near China. On the
western side of the Bay of Bengal, however, it is yellow,
and that is where you will get cirrus enhancement.
<br><br>Let me re-explain my theory. The gyre in the Bay of
Bengal moves clockwise on the surface with a bulge in
the center and downhill movements from the bulge to
the gyre--where coriolis does the right turning of
that down flowing current. Underneath this gyre,
following Ekman's drift, which is a combination of Coriolis
forces and friction, there is the deep counter, which
moves counter-clockwise in opposite to the the surface
movements. <br><br>Therefore, on the surface is essentially
a westward moving current on the west side of the
Bay of Bengal, and this enhances cirrus. The SST
anomaly there is warm, so heat is trying to move toward
the north pole, and coriolis right turns it and
cirrus enhancement makes it warmer--a monsoon. But it
gets better.<br><br>The counter is taking the
detritus-the biological material from the huge river basin
there you well described, and putting it RIGHT UNDER
part of the gyre that has an upward electrical
current. This is like not only having a very strong
electrical current running through a wire, but having great
insulation of the wire as well. Get it?

What is also interesting is the
changing<br>magnetic field there. The Indian ocean is one of the
warmest and saltiest to contain methane hydrate fields,
even if river and detritus flow conditions are ripe
for formation of fields as opposed to merely methane
hydrates suspended during parts of the year.<br><br>Take a
look at where methane hydrates FIELDS are known to
exist:<br><br><a
href=http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/where.html
target=new>http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/where.html</a><br\
><br>I think it is very interesting that on the north
west coast of India there is a large field but on the
east coast, despite the huge river delta, no field (at
least now). Could that be why the SST anomalies are
cooler to the west of India and not the east? The
problem is that if oceans become too warm and salty, the
phase stability of the methane hydrates decreases and
they must form at a deeper and deeper part of the
ocean in the Bay of Bengal. If ocean temperatures are
indeed rising, this is one of the first places that one
would expect drier conditions, or at the very least, a
more seasonal rainfall, as the oceans have to bee cold
enough and the rivers running enough biological material
to have a sustained methane hydrate presence. In
reality, this should actually result in LESS flooding in
the region, but it is hard to say with the seasonal
implications. In may just mean more extremes of flooding and
drought. The flooding would also then be related to higher
SSTs and not just the electrical enhancement of
cirrus.

Finally, on the magnetic fields, please again
check out this link
again:<br><br><a
href=http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/geology/geology10/geology10.html
target=new>http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/geology/geology10/geology10.html</a><b\
r><br>Note how over the past 100 years, according to NASA,
the magnetic field over the ocean to the southeast of
India have increased, whereas the field over the ocean
to the southwest of India has decreased. It would
seem from this that cirrus enhancement would be on par
or higher, therefore, in Bangledesh, whereas to the
African side of India it would be reduced. Overall, as
the magnetic field has been changed or reduced 10%,
AND there is a small recorded warming over this
period, this indicates how strongly the warming actually
is, and how great the modulation is as
well.<br><br>This warming, IMHO, is related to both the decrease in
Keeling Whorf moon tides, AND, higher and higher human
emissions of CO2 that increases the biological content of
CO2 and increases methanogen and methane hydrate
activity.

The anomalies that are off the chart are in Asia,
as I predicted, relative to China dam and delta
changes. Understand that the myolin sheath effect of
biological activity is not as effective later in the summer
to transport cirrus and precip to places like the
Pac NW where I<br>live (or where Mt. Shasta is losing
glacial ice). But as the sed and detritus flows later and
insulates the deep counters in the east Pac<br>and China
Sea, it provides conditions for local flooding and SST
warming.<br><br>Of particular interest is the Sea of Okhotsk, which
is unreal with its SST anomaly warm conditions, yes,
on the WESTERN aspect of its gyre. This is an inland
sea that usually melts its ice sheet by the end of
March, and the sheet was there in May. So what's the
source of the warm anomaly?<br><br>The ocean? PDO?
Please. It could only be cirrus and the electrical aspect
I am discussing. And the regional problem is
related to dam and delta changes by the Chinese,
IMHO.<br><br>Here is the next important prediction. Understand this
well. As these northern gyres get moving, guess what?
Yep. The Arctic melts. It<br>directly has little to do
with CO2 at this time. Indeed, w/ the dams, there is
overall cooling IMHO, just like what occurred during our
Dust<br>Bowl. But if the dams were not masking this heat, the
CO2 enhancement of the methanogens would be so clear
that even a skeptic like John Daly<br>would have
difficulty picking temperature sites to fool people with
intellectually criminal straw men.<br><br>My mountain, the one I
was supposed to climb this year, but is too crappy to
climb, Mt Shasta, is the subject, along with other
mountains, of<br>John Daly's recent pages professing
skepticism about glaciers melting worldwide in higher lats.
But John won't explain the magnetic field anomaly
near India, or the SST anomalies near China. And he
won't write about Lindzen's iris, and comment on his
failure to address direction of current, ENSO, or biology
with his selection of data. Skeptics of the climate
debate really need to look at their bias, I
think.<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<\
br>> ____<br>> ><br>> > To unsubscribe
from this list, please send an email to<br>> >
debate-off@... from the appropriate email<br>> >
account.<br>> <br>> <br>>
_______________________________________________________________________<br>>
____<br>> <br>> To unsubscribe from this
list, please send an email to <br>>
debate-off@... from the appropriate email <br>>
account.

<a href=http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/rmsdsol/tropical.html
target=new>http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/rmsdsol/tropical.html</a><br><br>P\
lease look at this link under the sub link loop of
water vapor.<br><br>What I would ask everyone to notice
is that there is cirrus enhancement to the west of
the gyre in the Gulf and the basin south of Cuba.
This enhancement merges near Florida and extends
hundreds of miles well into the North Atlantic.<br><br>If
a wave this huge had traveled from Cape Verde later
in the year, this would have been a cat 5. But
because of river changes the NHC was debating whether to
call it a TS. <br><br>I would also mention that there
has been plenty of time for the flooding from TS
Allison to reinvigorate the methanogen habitat in the
Gulf, so while last year at this time of year there was
NO WAY we would see a Gulf Storm, it is possible
this one could be another stalling and flooding
Allison. The further west it goes, the greater rainfall to
expect out of it. And BTW, it is tracking west because,
again, that is where the substantial cirrus enhancement
is--on the western side of the gyre in the Gulf. The
basin south of Cuba will not, IMHO, because of the
Venezuela and West Africa dams, be much of a cofactor, even
as it is one source of it flaring up right now
during daylight hours.

Alright. This is complicated and seems to NOT be
related to Barry, but try to hang w/ it. The reward is a
zen like understanding of just exactly what a
tropical storm is. The applicable rule is Fleming's RIGHT
hand rule. HOWEVER, magnetic NORTH is really MAGNETIC
SOUTH. The idea is that a bar magnet w/ a magnetic north
wants to point to a bar magnet w/ a magnetic south,
cause opposits attract. Turns out that the earth
behaves like a bar magnet w/ magnetic "north" like
magnetic south on a bar magnet. Now, Fleming's RIGHT hand
rule says that for a conductor MOVING through a
magnetic field, and in this case the conductor is the
surface of the ocean, WESTERN currents will generate and
UPWARD electrical vector. This vector electrifies the
surface of the ocean like charge plate of a capacitor
and, get this, enhances cirrus cloud formation.
Conversely, the EASTERN currents go the other way. A tropical
storm has internal organization such that these forces
band, and a low is as electrical as it is a physical
occurance. <br><br>Now, whether you debate this theory or
not, let's apply it w/ Barry. The Gulf of Mexico
already has a gyre and surface movements independant of
the winds of Barry. In this case, there is a bulge
over the central portion of the Gulf and this is
really the manefestation of the angular momentum of the
gyre in the Gulf, created by Ekman currents in
relation to Coriolis forces right turning the surface
currents. English? There is a current in the Gulf on the
Surface that moves like a spiral clockwise. To the RIGHT
of this spiral the surface winds ENHANCE cirrus
electrically, to the left, DECREASE cirrus.<br><br>The problem
with Barry is that its winds are moving WEST on the
top of the storm. Normally, this should move ocean
surface waters and enhance cirrus--but these winds
contrast the very direction of the Gulf itself. They
clash. If you can conceptualize it, that is where the
dry line comes from to the north and the monsoon to
the west of the region.<br><br>Sources for cirrus
enhancement WERE the western side of the basin below Cuba and
the western side of the Gulf--where they converged in
Florida. But those conditions no longer exist, and Barry's
winds are blowing against the Gulf gyre. That is your
"shear". Yes, it is about winds, but not really.

"At 5 a.m. EDT, Barry was centered about 180
miles<br> south-southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi
River. The storm<br> was nearly stationary with maximum
sustained winds of about 40<br> mph."<br>From:
<a
href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-hc-barry.story?coll=chi%\
2Dnews%2Dhed
target=new>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-hc-barry.story?col\
l=chi%2Dnew
s%2Dhed</a><br>-----<br>I have a question. If "Barry" is located just below
the mouth of the mighty Mississip, what role if any
would methanogens play in its development/demise?
Methanogens input H2 + CO2. What is their output?

I will have more to say about Barry, but you have
the mechanism wrong. It isn't the chemistry--it's the
conductivity. Methane hydrates are electtrically insulating,
and as suspended in the waters there in the Gulf,
they insulate the counter currents such that whatever
that surface current is doing is going to relavitely
show up elctrically. So where that storm is right now,
w/ the currents naturally, without the hurricane
winds doing anything, that current REDUCES cirrus, and
hence shears the storm. With the day time flaring, I
note it is picking up some moisture SOUTH. This storm
only gets big if it head west. If it goes on shore as
it is projected by forecasters, it won't be much. If
OTOH, it continues west and landfalls near where
Allison did, there starts to be some west moving ocean
currents and this storm will be another staller and
flooder like Allison.

Well, let's hope it DOESN'T move West. We don't need any more weather disasters
in the Gulf States. Some of my relatives live down there!<br><br>-midlantwx

Allison did something unusual in that is didn't
have real strong winds yet there was great rainfall
with it. What happened here is that a typical cirrus
enhancing mechanism of a tropical storm will be the winds
of the storm moving warm salty water on the ocean
surface, inducting a current, be it positive or negitive,
and bands of cirrus organize and when the storm
landfalls, flooding can occur. But with Allison, these bands
weren't really strong enough to move any currents. Where
the moisture came from was the built in conduction
that occurs in the gyre in the Gulf of Mexico,
specifically the west moving currents on the west side of the
gyre. Allison then simply operated as a low to suck in
all the moisture that existed over the Gulf under the
cirrus. <br><br>For the same type of thing to happen for
Barry, its landfall must do sort of the same thing.
Indeed, the storm organized when the west moving gyre
based cirrus enhancement from both the western
Carribean and the western Gulf converged over Florida.
<br><br>Presently, not only is there a lack of "help" from the
gyres, but the winds north of Barry, which move WEST and
therefore cirrus enhancing, are actually flying against the
EAST moving current of the Gulf gyre. This is why
moisture or convection aren't matching the low real well.
But I noticed that this may be changing with the
day's flaring developements and slow westward
movements. If it landfalls much further west, and connects
with cirrus enhancement to its south, we could indeed
have another Allison. But, unlike Allison which
evolved from the moisture mechinism I am describing,
Barry form from BOTH the Carribean and Gulf gyres, and
has moved to such a location that it no longer is
going to get help from the Carribean (unless you are
talking about the extra-tropical bands that are hitting
Florida).

Barry Update. The most recent water vapor
pictures shows continued moisture from cirrus enhancement
coming from the Carribean and the western aspect of the
Gulf the cirrus enhancement is really flying hard
northwest--no way does Barry get cirrus enhancement from there.
I suspect that Barry itself is responsible for such
a movement coming off the western Gulf, with the
west winds on the northern part of the storm. Finally,
it looks like there is a dry line rushing south
across the SW and it is going to draw it NE.<br><br>The
BP is falling, but that is only a result of the
flaring of the day ending cirrus enhancement, such that
its energy is from cirrus isn't really connected
directly to the low. But with the night the energy of
cirrus enhancement comes directly from the ocean
movements and coupling--and the BP is dropping in an
enviorment now w/out much dry air. <br><br>Since it is
moving east again, it appears to have chosen the energy
from the western part of the Carribean, so Florida
should get some more rain out of this.<br><br>This storm
turned out to be really good news for those in the
drought stricken SW. As this is a flaring year, or an El
Nino year, this is expected. However, the dams in
Venezuela and West Africa that led to this drought are
still doing there thing, and with no flaring events
scheduled until winter 2002, I suspect the Floridians
should be happy with what rain they got out of the
Allison/Barry storms.

If you get a chance to look at the large scale
water vapor
link:<br><br><a href=http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/rmsdsol/tropical.html
target=new>http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/rmsdsol/tropical.html</a><br><br>Y\
ou can see how when Barry was drawn by the low
ashore it moved the underlying enhancement from cirrus
with it. This moisture was in the shape of an upside
down 'Y', with one part of the 'Y' over the western
Carribean, and the other over the western Gulf. The 'Y' got
tilted clockwise, and the cirrus enhancement that was
over the western Carribean is now over the western
Gulf, and the cirrus enhanceent over the Western Gulf
now thunderstorms in Oklahoma. <br><br>It should be
noted that part of the stalling and flooding that comes
with the type of cirrus enhancement we have now is
higher up. And at higher levels of measurement, you
should get higher wind speeds. For instance, connected
with Barry are buoy readings, which are taken at 10
meters. At buoy 42039, for instance, there was of 39kts
with a peak gust to 54 kts. The NHC uses buoy and BP
information to forecast surface wind speeds. Here is a link
to that
buoy:<br><br><a
href=http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.phtml?%24station=42039
target=new>http://seaboard.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.phtml?%24station=42039</a>\
<br><br>Surface winds are used by everyone else--at about 1 meter
readings are taken for these winds. For instance, Eglin
Airforce Base was measuring winds of 63mph last night. For
the most part, winds were much less than
forecast--the 70 mph figure the most quoted. <br><br>Here is a
link by a forecaster who explains perhaps why the
surface speeds differed from what was forecast or what
kind of <br><br>
<a href=http://www.accuweather.com/adcbin/news_index?nav=home&type=jbsbut
target=new>http://www.accuweather.com/adcbin/news_index?nav=home&type=jbsbut</a>
<br><br>I however, would be more inclined to
think that the issue is cirrus enhancement, where right
now, with the lack of volcanic activity and heavy
early spring river flow in the Gulf with the
Mississippi subsisting 25 square miles yearly now for several
in a row to go with upper river flooding (along with
bonus runoff from Allison, particularly in the Florida
region which got good rainfall for the first time really
since 1998). There was also flaring energy in the Gulf
and in the Carribean, and despite the dam issues in
Venezuela and West Africa, there were warm waters there and
some solar based cirrus activity going on. Indeed,
while the storm could form in the dam cirrus delaying
Carribean, when the combination of the Gulf moisture AND
what little enhancement that occurs in the Western
Carribean, the storm formed.<br><br>The next big wave may
become that Alberto II I predicted in April. Let's watch
it.

<a href=http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
target=new>http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html</a><br><br>This
is relevant to when flaring has the greatest
impact (UV light and distance more impact then
luminousity and distance) and when seasonal winds occur to
drive greatest wind driven ocean current induction.

<a href=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Severe_Weather/
target=new>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Severe_Weather/</a><br><br>Comments
on heat wave link above.<br><br>Conditions are
good for heat. We had a tropical storm that blew
against the counter current winds in both the Carribean
and Gulf in Barry. Just before Barry landfell, for
instance, you could see the cirrus enhancement from the
western Gulf going almost straight west before it hit the
cirrus enhanced monsoon flow from the East Pac. There
was no significant tropical activity in the East Pac.
doing anything with its cirrus enhancement. We had a
flaring event in April and SSTs are good.<br><br>In the
China dams and the incredible local flooding that is
occuring, there is low energy coming from that region--no
big waves or cold fronts coming in. There are now
huge warm SST anomalies that have moved from near
Asia--essentially enhancement that went close to Asia this spring
that should have been rainfall and precip in the Pac
NW
then:<br><br><a href=http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
target=new>http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html</a><br><br\
>We are in a low sulfur year--no proximate Mt.
Pinatubo events reducing the phase change temperature of
cirrus. There is no sulpur in the oceans increasing
counter current conductivity.<br><br>The Mississippi has
been subsisting 25 square miles a year as of late, and
the flaring event combined with China dam activity
caused some pretty substantial upper river flooding that
lead to later further high sed and flow rates.

he drought in the Atlantic SW from the dams on
the Orinoco and West Africa finally ended w/ the
flaring event and Allison. But as it did end w/ Allison,
there was three years worth of biological material that
got washed into the eastern Gulf and the proximate
North Atlantic, and this really is why there was enough
for Barry to flare up and cause even more cirrus
enhancement, including drawing up some cirrus enhancement from
the Carribean, something that hasn't happened w/ how
sed and flow is delayed relative to the Orinoco until
much later in the year.<br><br>Of course, while the
recent prolific dam activity, especially in developing
nations, reduces the amount of CO2 and H2 in the oceans,
and at the same time cools the ocean SSTs so they
"sink" relatively more CO2 out of the air, human fossil
fuel emissions continue to rise unabated, and CO2 is
methanogen food. Between high levels of CO2 causing a GHG
effect and high levels of CO2 causing year round greater
methanogen activity, the situation is there for cirrus
enhancement despite the lack of spring time sed and flow
rates from dammed up rivers. It is interesting to note
that cyclonic activity occurs when seasonal winds are
not as strong, but these cyclones also provide cirrus
enhancing westward conducting currents. In 10 or so years,
however, I think no one will mistake the incredible cirrus
enhancement from CO2 as methanogen foods as some of the
recent dams start to produce more reasonable sed and
flow rates, much like the Rio, Mississippi, and
Colorado have adjusted since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
As this happens, no one will be making a red herring
argument about the troposphere, because it will be on fire
everywhere.

Finally, I would point out that it isn't a year
where there is significant Keeling Whorf methane
hydrate depressurization. See figure
1:<br><br><a href=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/070047197
target=new>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/070047197</a><br><br>This
graphic shows that depressurization is relatively
low, but it isn't at its lowest point either, which
would corresponde to the Little Climatic Optimum. If
you combine high CO2 levels w/ Little Climatic
Optimum depressurization and dams leveling off (to me CO2
as a GHG isn't nearly as huge a forcing as cirrus
activity), that is where you are going to see your greatest
warming. OTOH, the earth's magnetic field has been reduced
or morphed about 10% over the past 150 years. This
correspondes to reduced cirrus activity, such that if it is
related to warmer oceans and more stabile methane hydrate
fields, than we can expect further reductions of the
field in the coming years, and perhaps some modulation
of the cirrus activity--at a cost of potential
non-linear change of magnetic fields that could be THE
event.

<a href=http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~agusta/review/numerical.html
target=new>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~agusta/review/numerical.html</a>

<a href=http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~agusta/review/numerical.html
target=new>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~agusta/review/numerical.html</a><br><br>Com\
ments about this link.<br><br>I think I can say some
further things better with a
drawing:<br><br><a href=http://www.ssiatty.com/climate/gyre.gif
target=new>http://www.ssiatty.com/climate/gyre.gif</a><br><br>Seems like the
fact that the Gulf gyre bulge off center
is important. Near Florida the Gulf moves very fast
(4 mph) and near Africa it was only through floating
bottle experiments by Morroco's Prince Ranier's
grandfather do we know that currents even exist. (This may
bring back the fog issue and its conductivity).
Further, the deep counters from sinking Arctic waters are
cold BUT relatively saline and actually, relatively
warm compared to simply cold water sinking. IOW, this
water is more conductive with a DOWNWARD vector, which
although it may cause reduction in the cirrus enhancement
overhead, it draws further current from the eastern side of
the ocean to the western. I strongly suspect that
this is the mechanism of our magnetic field, insofar
as coupling of wind and heat energy drives this
current.

The electric field looks like it is +/- 1 micro volt?

Sorry I couldn't get back to you
sooner.<br><br>Maxwell's equations state that anelectric charge gives rise
to electric fields, a changing electric field
creates magnetic fields, and a changing magnetic field
creates electric fields. Electricity and magnetism are
just two sides of the same coin, and if you specify
all the electric charges and how they're moving, you
can calculate all the fields (and hence, all the
forces). Hence, assuming there are very strong voltages in
the atmosphere, then earth's magnetic field value for
the magnetic field on the surface, say, of the Gulf
Stream ABOVE the cables measuring that microvolt is
wrong because you merely use the strength of the
overall earth's magnetic field and not any of the fields
created by what is going on in the air, and so is your
current calculations are off as well.<br><br>The
observational data is very strong--more negative lightning
strikes. Further, there is Lindzen's data, although
misleading and all of that, once we start seeing the
mechanism involved, the fact that his data excludes El Nino
and biological activity is GOOD as a sort of
control.<br><br>Anyway, no matter what the voltages are at the bottom of
the oceans where the cables were laid, and what low
levels of induction they measured, <br>they were
relative in all likelihood to merely the field of the
earth. On the surface, OTOH, there is a very big problem
with 1)flaring and 2) <br>all the other electrical
forces (I have seen 700 page books). The given constant
here, however, is a moving conductor and biology that
lives <br>inside it that has resistive properties. The
<br>ASSUMPTION that only the earth's magnetic field is then
involved in the induction is wrong. But <br>the very fact
that there are large voltages in the air changes the
magnetic field and intensifies it, even if we don't know
it what <br>direction. Yet we also know things like
convection and lightning strikes <br>are correlated. And
since we are seeing this convection over these western
parts of gyres, and over west moving currents, it seems
to me <br>that there is a feedback mechanism going
on. <br><br>Ekman's drift. This too is significant if
we are <br>talking about electrical currents making
electrical fields which in turn make electrical
currents--dynamically within the moving conducter of the moving
currents. So when a lightning strikes, it changes the field
strength and ultimately the direction and scope of low
frequancy wide area charges as that charge gets
distributed! The ocean currents matter!<br><br>And I again
point to Lindzen's paper, because the data there is
pretty solid. Sure there is ambiant winds moving the
cirrus about and all, but <br>there is a clear pattern
that colder currents, that happen to be moving WEST,
enhanced cirrus clouds. Until I see any kind of rational
arguement explaining this, I will go with my theory, and
build on it circumstantially, bit by bit.

<a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0809/p2s2-sten.html
target=new>http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0809/p2s2-sten.html</a><br><br>"Tiny,
previously unknown bacteria are turning out to be
key sustainers of ocean life and its ability to
sequester global-warming carbon dioxide.<br><br>Like the
bacteria that live on the roots of peas and beans, these
marine microbes take nitrogen from the air and "fix" it
in chemical forms that fertilize
plants."<br><br>Comment:<br><br>As far as "breaking down" CO2 and all that, you
folks can well slam how this is written but at the same
time pretty much know what the author is "trying" to
convey. Let's put it this way--at age 10 I knew from my
<br>mother planting peas in the family garden that nitrogen
was in the air but not in the soil, and somehow some
plants could do it for you and fertilize your garden.
<br><br>But what is NOT well known is the very complex
symbiotic relations between microbes, nor does the author
touch on the MOST important one, as readers who
understand the Methane Mike know, regarding the Methanogens
and <br>their ability to alter ocean conductivity and
hence alter climate via cirrus clouds. As the debate
swings toward biology and away from hard physical
science, I hear a collective gasp from the physical
scientists who have dominated the climate debate. Well, let
me give you all a clue--either broaden your horizons
or you will be left behind, and sadly for you, that
includes listening to those who have a much simpler
understanding of what it means to, say, break down CO2.

<a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/01/1/14/wglob14b.jpeg
target=new>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/01/1/14/wglob14b.jpeg</a>
<br><br>Comment: <br><br>Why isn't anyone interested in 1) direction of current,
2) ENSO (or ionosphere induction), or 3) associated biology?

Dust would be repelled by strong magnetic fields,
and cold oceans are less conductive than warmer
oceans.<br><br>This is where an intereresting feedback exists. For
instance, the magnetic feild was over 2 Gauss 3,000 years
ago, four times stronger than today. Did that time get
4 times the cirrus enhancement, perhaps 4 times the
precipitation? I strongly suspect NOT. However, when these
storms DID move over oceans, the connectivity between
convection and electrical fields, and between electrical
fields and magnetic fields, when put into the context of
the moving oceans as moving conductors, puts them all
together. The greater magnetic field was, therefore, a sign
of what was going on. And this brings me back to the
fact that our magnetic field has shrunk 10% over the
past 150 years. As humans emerged from Africa about
730,000 years ago the earth's magnetic feild reversed.
Today, if there as a climate shift from a pole
reversal--there would be no place to run.

<a href=http://www.etheric.com/Superwave/Ch3.html
target=new>http://www.etheric.com/Superwave/Ch3.html</a>
<br><br>Comment:<br><br>I don't think it is so much of the sun having a
flaring anomaly as it is about the earth having a low
anomaly of a protective field relative to ocean currrents
and ocean temperature along the equator.

A potentially interesting aspect of methane
hydrate fields and the low specific conductivity
associated with them relates to the tending of a negitive
charge on southwestern parts of ocean gyres and positive
charge on northeastern insofar as the curvature of the
earth would render the shortest distanced between the
these fields beneath the earth. That would force a
current to essentially ride along the ocean bottom, and
make the distribution of methane hydrates and fields
critically important in seperating charges and forcing
electrical currents to flow above the oceans.

http:/www.ssiatty.com/com/climate/june.html

Mike asked me to post the following information
here. Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping track of
any running totals of anything, but here is a summary
of solar flares from April until now.<br><br>April
started out with a real bang when sunspot groups 9393 and
9415 combined to produce dozens of M and X-class
flares. The honor for the strongest flare goes to sunspot
group 9393, which banged off what was estimated to be
an X-17 flare...the strongest solar flare ever
recorded. That happened on April 2. Sunspot group 9393
stayed intact for an unprecedented 3 full rotations
around the sun.<br><br>During May things calmed down
considerably, and it actually got quite boring! Activity picked
back up in June, with the sunspot number over 200 for
much of the time. There were also quite a few M-class
flares in June, although no flares were produced of the
X-class variety.<br><br>July, in contrast, was very
quiet. During the last week of June, there were several
large, complex sunspot groups visible. They all decayed
quite suddenly, and there have been very few flares
since then. There were a couple of M-class flares
earlier this month.